[BA FTP archive] Errata: Wrong version numbers, misnamings…

[SoftWitch]

Of course BA FTP archives are not free from formal errors or faulty content. It could be a good idea to have a central watch thread to make life easier for FTP admins.

If you discover a wrong version number, misnamed program, duplicate, wrong directory, etc., please post it here.

Another possibility could be faulty or incomplete content, that slipped through the initial examination.

A FTP admin may then check that and correct the error if appropriate.

Please include the link from the database for quicker and easier processing.

[SoftWitch]

First

• Microsoft Macro Assembler 6.13 is actually 6.1 according to readme, and 6.13 was not available stand-alone according to Wikipedia
• Microsoft Word 6.0 (5.25") is Word for DOS, according to hints of running this version in a DOS box in the readme and occurances of the name "DWORD"
• while the other Word 6.0 (3.5") is Word for Windows, according to Windows installer
• Microsoft Money 2.0 (5.25") is version 2.0a for Windows (1992), according to about box (and disks were not virginal)


Not completely verified:
• Microsoft C "Compiler", "Optimizing Compiler" and "Professional Development System" are probably just subtitles of the Microsoft C product, not additional versions.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft ... t_versions

More:
• Microsoft AutoRoute Express Europe [OEM] is Microsoft AutoRoute Express 4.0 Europe (1995-05-23) [OEM], according to CD title (and about box, etc.)
• In the Games->PC directory: Microsoft Arcade (1993) (3½) (alt) is in fact Return of Arcade (1996), a Windows 95 game already in the collection. But this one is modified, and Microsoft Return of Arcade (1996) (3.5") is incomplete (only two disks, which are identical the other's three) -> the only good version is Microsoft Return of Arcade (3.5")! However all of them are not in the PC (Windows) directory. Source: Readme files and completeness .
• Microsoft Fine Artist 1.1b and Microsoft Creative Writer 1.1 both are Windows 3.1 + Mac OS Classic cross-platform versions. Source: Mac portion visible on any Mac OS



Edit: Added the sources of my discoveries.

[Andy]

Generally all errors should be PM'ed to mrpijey. He does not routinely check the forum for issues people have posted.

[WinPC]

This is a report that I will make of any incorrect labels that I will find. I will be posting more later.

(Misc) Uncategorized
Microsoft Windows 95 (4.00.224) (M7 UK Focus Group Pack) (1994-11-14) (beta).rar:
This is actually an international version of Windows 95 Beta 2 (4.00.224) that was apparently released in Britain/Ireland, as opposed to being just a feature pack or series of applications, so it actually belongs in (Beta) Operating Systems/PC.

Disk scan provided from archive:


Screenshot of Windows 95 Setup: (contained in the \M7 directory)


Most likely this was mistaken as being just a feature pack or series of pre-release Windows 95 applications due to being uploaded alongside several other such releases if I remember correctly. Still, it belongs in "(Beta) Operating Systems/PC" due to being an actual build of Windows 95 itself.

[tarlabnor]

Microsoft Windows 2.1 (286) (Russian) (5.25'') - unofficial localization made by unknown enthusiasts. If you look at boot record of each image (unknown, dos 3.2, pctools, pctools) it will be clear it's not from MS.
The very first official localized version was russian Windows v3.1 released by Microsoft in January 1993 (iirc).

[DiskingRound]

Microsoft Windows 2.1 (286) (Russian) (5.25'') - unofficial localization made by unknown enthusiasts. If you look at boot record of each image (unknown, dos 3.2, pctools, pctools) it will be clear it's not from MS.
The very first official localized version was russian Windows v3.1 released by Microsoft in January 1993 (iirc).

Same thing with Microsoft Windows 2.11 (386) [Russian] (5.25''). Unofficial localization, the headers of the IMGs (PC/AT, DOS 3.2, PCTools, PCTools) indicate it is not from MS (assuming the disks were dumped properly, of course).

This is from the Windows/386 2.11 Russian downloaded directly from BetaArchive.

[mrpijey]

So you assume it's an unofficial localization based on the image headers? Or do you have other sources it not being an official translation?

[tarlabnor]

So you assume it's an unofficial localization based on the image headers? Or do you have other sources it not being an official translation?

I don't "assume". I know it from other sources, for sure.

First source - this site (sorry, it's in russian, you may try to read it using google translate or similar service). That's the story about Microsoft first steps in USSR. There's a lot of details - which products were localized, when, who and where worked on it etc. There are some interesting photos as well.

To make long story short:
1. First official MS russian localization - MS-DOS 4.01, Bill Gates presented it personally on April,12 1990 in Moscow.
2. ...followed by localized MS Works 2.0 for DOS (localized GUI + support for documents in russian, spell-checker was still english only).
3. ...followed by russian MS-DOS 5.0
4. Windows 3.0 was skipped (sic !) due to lack of truetype fonts support (I guess there's no need to talk about Windows 2.x even).
5. Next localized OS was Windows 3.1.

Later I had a chance to find a guy who worked those times on documentation and glossary translation. I wanted to know more about why Microsoft didn't translate into russian Windows NT 3.x and why MS-DOS 6.x was translated so poorly (6.22 + documentation only). He answered:

1. There were no plans to sell officially Windows NT 3.x in Russia. It wasn't considered end-user product and CoCom limits were ceased only in March 1994. Earlier MS wasn't allowed to sell it in USSR at all, so there was no need in localized version.
2. MS put minimal efforts into russian MS-DOS 6 because they considered Windows 3.1 as their main product and best seller. Moreover they already had official russian versions of WinWord 2.0c and Excel 4.0a at that time.

Btw Windows 2.1x wasn't the only inofficial russian localization, Excel 2.1 is another example of similar work.

[Battler]

Actually, that side mentions a Russian code page for Windows before Russian MS-DOS 5.00. And nowhere does it say Windows 2.x was never officially released in Russian. Sorry, but one single source failing to mention Russian Windows 2.x is not conclusive evidence for it not being an official translation.

Second, the other guy wasn't even asked about Windows 2.x, so again his statement proves nothing about Windows 2.x.

Third, Windows 2.1x was released around the same time as MS-DOS 4.0x, so it makes sense that Microsoft would translate it alongside the DOS.

Fourth, the first source clearly mentions a Windows code page being decided before 1991 and changes being made to it in 1991 in Ireland.

[tarlabnor]

Actually, that side mentions a Russian code page for Windows before Russian MS-DOS 5.00

To be exact in November-December 1990. And there were: codepage, raster fonts and the first version of keyboard driver for... Windows 3.0.

And nowhere does it say Windows 2.x was never officially released in Russian. Sorry, but one single source failing to mention Russian Windows 2.x is not conclusive evidence for it not being an official translation.

Strange argument. It doesn't mention russian Windows 1.x as well, but it doesn't mean it ever existed. Actually MS-DOS 4.01 was the very first attempt to sell at least something on the Soviet market.

I can give you another source - 4 page scans with Bill Gates' interview published in soviet computer magazine "Microprocessor resources and systems" (June 1990):
one, two, three, four.

It's also in russian. On the 4th page (last question):

- Will there be any other localized MS products for Soviet market ?
- Yes, this work doesn't stop on MS-DOS. We finish localization of intergated suite Works... ...it will be finished this summer.

Summer 1990. In November they've already started working on Windows 3 localization tools and fonts.

Another interesting source (about many products, not MS only) - Soviet Computer Software and Applications in the 1980's.

Second, the other guy wasn't even asked about Windows 2.x, so again his statement proves nothing about Windows 2.x.

Sure he knew about these "russian Windows 2.1x" and "russian Excel 2.01". And about MS-DOS 3.2 with translated commands and messages called Alpha-DOS. Moreover guys from MS saw those also. They knew: "if Russians translate and use our products, probably we could sell 'em it officially". But MS had nothing to do with those localizations.

Third, Windows 2.1x was released around the same time as MS-DOS 4.0x, so it makes sense that Microsoft would translate it alongside the DOS.

Not in case of USSR. Those days it was the country where computer costed like an auto, software was considered as a "natural part of computer" and no one could even imagine to pay for something except hardware itself. That article mentions that at the beginning MS wasn't happy with nearly zero sales. And don't forget that Windows was more expensive product than OEM versions of MS-DOS.

Fourth, the first source clearly mentions a Windows code page being decided before 1991 and changes being made to it in 1991 in Ireland.

First source says that work on Windows code page was started for Windows 3.0, but it was delayed until Windows 3.1:
"In May 1990 Windows 3.0 was released - new Windows era has begun. After my arrival to Ireland there was immediately stated question about Russian, Central- and East-European Windows, yet priorities were shifted to Russian Dos 5.0, AlphabetPlus и EE Works. It was difficult to support East European languages in Windows 3.0 cause it lacked truetype fonts support. Therefore it had been decided to localize Windows 3.1 that was planned for release in 1992."

[Battler]

It was difficult to support East European languages in Windows 3.0 cause it lacked truetype fonts support.

I seriously doubt Microsoft would have actually given that as a reason, considering they know very well that all you need is any kind of font with the correct characters, not necessarily TrueType. This alone makes me raise quite an eyebrow at that site and make me doubt its authors really know all that much. It seems more like that site just collected information as much as it could, and posted it, regardless of whether it's accurate or not. It's not an official Microsoft statement anyway, so it should not be taken as gospel.

Sure he knew about these "russian Windows 2.1x" and "russian Excel 2.01"

I never said he didn't know about them, I said you never asked him about them. And even then, who is he? Is he a Microsoft developer? If not, it could once again by someone knowing what he was told by other people, and thinking it's fact, even though it might not be accurate. So again, not something that should be taken as gospel.

What we'd need is, someone with first-hand knowledge who worked on the stuff stating Windows 2.x was never officially translated to Russian. Until we get that evidence, we sure can speculate about the translation being unofficial, but can not assume that's a fact.

[tarlabnor]

It was difficult to support East European languages in Windows 3.0 cause it lacked truetype fonts support.

I seriously doubt Microsoft would have actually given that as a reason, considering they know very well that all you need is any kind of font with the correct characters, not necessarily TrueType. This alone makes me raise quite an eyebrow at that site and make me doubt its authors really know all that much. It seems more like that site just collected information as much as it could, and posted it, regardless of whether it's accurate or not. It's not an official Microsoft statement anyway, so it should not be taken as gospel.

All information from sources I've mentioned in my post above is enough to understand that there was no official russian version of Windows before Windows 3.1 itself (you may believe it or not - it's up to you). Yes, this info is in russian and google translate won't help much to get all details. But it is enough for everyone to get some information and come to conclusion.

As about official Microsoft statement, I don't think MS will ever say anything about it's ancient versions officially. You may try to contact author of that site (the guy on the left side of the first photo, yst( at )rdos401.org) and get some details.

What we'd need is, someone with first-hand knowledge who worked on the stuff stating Windows 2.x was never officially translated to Russian.

Then you need to contact a person who was the head of MS localization team in Europe - Paul Robson.

[Battler]

- tarlabnor: I speak and read Russian, so I don't need Google Translate. I read the page directly, and nowhere does it clearly state Windows 2.x was never officially translated.

[tarlabnor]

- tarlabnor: I speak and read Russian, so I don't need Google Translate. I read the page directly, and nowhere does it clearly state Windows 2.x was never officially translated.

There are mentioned products that were officially translated in that period of time: from MS-DOS 4.01 (the very first russian MS localization) to Windows 3.1. Did they need to mention all other products that weren't ? I don't think so.

Anyway the best thing one could do - contact author of this site and ask him.

[n2607]

The Halo 2 builds in Games/Xbox both appear to be build 02.06.28.07902

[Fred_PJ]

Microsoft Multimedia Mozart: The Dissonant Quartet is not from 1995 but instead 1993.
Also, it's missing the CD audio tracks. The correct image size with the audio tracks should be around 666MB, the one at the FTP is only 139MB.

[mrpijey]

Microsoft Multimedia Mozart: The Dissonant Quartet is not from 1995 but instead 1993.
Also, it's missing the CD audio tracks. The correct image size with the audio tracks should be around 666MB, the one at the FTP is only 139MB.

Pay attention here everyone, this is exactly why we don't want or can't use ISO images for preservation.!

Thanks for letting us know, I will remove the release in the hopes that someone uploads a full MDF dump (and scan) of it in the future.

[DiskingRound]

Here is another (possible) misnaming I found:
/(Abandonware) Applications/PC/Microsoft Access 2.03 (5.25'') is actually 2.00, according to my VPC 2007 WfW 3.1 testing VM:

Also the disks either aren't original or they were dumped badly. They have the WINIMAGE boot sector.

[carlaum1]

/(Abandonware) Games/PC/Secret Of Monkey Island, The (1990) (3.5'') is the EGA version of the game, just like Secret Of Monkey Island, The (EGA) (1991) (3.5'').

/(Abandonware) Games/PC/Doom (1.666) (3.5'') is the shareware version of the game.

[DiskingRound]

/(Beta) Operating Systems/PC/Microsoft Windows 3.1 (3.10.061d) (beta2) (3.5'') - actually this is Beta 3/Final Beta Release. This was clearly added before it was found that 61d was beta 3 and 43e was beta 2.

[oscareczek]

Microsoft Windows XP (''Whistler'' 5.1.2462.0) (Professional beta2) (alt) is in fact Personal - Professional key works, but SKU is still Personal.

[mrpijey]

It's indeed a duplicate, it's been deleted. Thanks.

[domantasrackovas]

/(Abandonware) Operating Systems/PC/Microsoft Windows XP Professional (5.1.2600.1106) [English] (CD) [OEM] is actually Home Edition, not Professional.

[DiskingRound]

/(Beta) Operating Systems/PC/Microsoft Windows 95 (''Chicago'' 4.00.347) (beta2) (3.5'') [Incomplete]
I'm pretty sure this copy is not incomplete, but Thraka's previous upload of this was. This actually disappointed me, because I just found Windows 95 build 347 3.5'' on eBay, thought the copy we had was incomplete, clicked on the folder and discovered it wasn't. In fact, it even had scans. Therefore that listing was nothing new at all.

[mrpijey]

What are you on about? It can still be incomplete even if all floppies are in the archive... Did you actually check that all floppies were correct and properly dumped? Or did you just assume everything was correct because there were 15 scans and 15 image files?